|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 6:57:17 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
Romans 3:22: "2. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe".
Please note how we receive the righteousness of God..."which is by faith". Also note that the righteousness of God is "unto all and upon all them that believe".
One verse ahead finds Paul including the entire human race in who will or can be justified freely, which is through faith in His blood. Clearly Paul debunked particular or limited atonement here.
quote:
Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ."
The grammar demands that it's the faith of Christ. This implanted faith is the starter for our faith which we continue to exercise throughout our lives.
Please explain where you get "implanted faith" from this text, or any other, for that matter. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:06:33 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
Why do you think God is the subject in Acts 13:48?
quote:
But please demonstrate some support for the idea that God was doing the appointing in Acts 13:48, please.
quote:
why do you default to God as appointer rather than themselves
I don't recall that anywhere in my post I said that God was doing the appointing. (Why did you assume I did?) The point of my post was that your addition of "themselves" to the text, even after all of your explanations, renders, in my mind, an unfeasible conclusion. I can't imagine that Luke meant for us to go Mark's gospel to find an example of this grammatical construct and then apply it here. I'll keep studyint certainly, but I just can't buy it at this point. Sorry.
I wouldn't expect Luke to even think of what or how Mark wrote. That's not my point. My point was that scholars note that passive voice is used when middle is meant, and Mark provides an example of just that.
Here is a quote from my Greek grammar text by Mounce: "Some tools such as EGNT distinguish between middle and passisve (which is an interpretive decision and may be wrong). Others, however, simply say it is "middle/passive." Mounce is considered by most as definitive in Greek grammar, having written a number of grammar texts as well as an analytical lexicon to the Greek NT.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:21:56 PM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Lu 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
FreeGrace : OK, who is doing the "setting" or tasso here? The Roman government, not God.
I think your comment here is very interesting. The text does not say who is doing the Tasso here, yet you assume (and I believe rightly) that the Roman Government did the appointing because they are the ones in authority over who gets put where in their army.
Perhaps the reformed are doing the same in Act 13:48 - For who has the authority over eternal life - God. So if someone was appointed to eternal life, who would be the one to do it - God. Surely this could also be a possible meaning. (And it seems a more natural reading honestly)
I am not saying that you are right or that they are right, but I can certainly see their position much easier that all the greek scholar, middle voice, passive voice, etc, etc that is necessary to understand your position. (I think it's kind of funny that you present it as though it should be clear as day for everyone to see 
quote:
So it is clear that Mark meant middle voice even though he used passive voice. That is a demonstration of how writers wrote. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that Luke did the same in Acts 13:48? Only a theological bias would reject that possibility, for it is a "proof-text" for them, but only without any proof. I think only a theological bias would lead someone to go to the lengths you have to make a way for this text to say they appointed themselves - sorry
quote:
It was common for writers to use passive when middle voice was meant. the example in Mark 1:6 proves that quite well. Is it common among writers of Scripture. Is this the only example you know of? One example doesn't equal common.
quote:
quote:
Destiny : From what I can gather in looking at these verses the only other case in which the subject "tassoes??" themselves, it is clearly shown that they themselves are doing it. (By the simple use of the pronoun - themselves) To get that from Acts 13:48 you have to do a lot a "stretching" as I see it. FreeGrace : Only because you forgot that it was common for writers to use passive when middle voice was meant. I gave you an example to demonstrate that fact. If you ignore that fact, ok, stay with your understanding. I didn't forget, I'm just not convinced. You gave me an example as in one. That doesn't translate to "its o.k. to take a passive voice and make it middle voice in every occasion"
As I read back over this post it sounds a little harsh and I hesitate to actually post it. Please know that I'm just posting my heart felt reservations about what you've presented and not a personal attack. thanks for the discussion.
In Love,
Destiny
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:28:49 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1772
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
All I can say to you, dear is BELIEVE that
BELIEVING is effectual to regeneration.
BELIEVE that regeneration creates a NEW BEING
with a NEW LIFE.
BELIEVE that a BELIEVER'S faith cannot die
but rather a BELIEVER'S faith perseveres.
BELIEVE that what God has done man cannot destroy!
In short BELIEVE that BELIEVING actually MEANS SOMETHING!
Know you BELIEVE because of what GOD has done,
not anything our decietful, evil, wickedn minds tell us.
I do. And where are you getting with this...?
quote:
FGM assures, condones and therefore promotes
worldly, carnal Christianity
Nope, it doesnt.If you will provide me with a quote ( in context)from any FG writer that promotes worldly, carnal Christianity i will be willing to debate it,but not until then....
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 7:51:39 PM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
tdd1975: I agree with you Destiny that the natural reading is that someone else did the ordaining. I believe that someone else is God. When I just read the text, even with the surrounding text intact, this does in fact seem the most natural meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:26:28 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
Lu 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
FreeGrace : OK, who is doing the "setting" or tasso here? The Roman government, not God.
I think your comment here is very interesting. The text does not say who is doing the Tasso here, yet you assume (and I believe rightly) that the Roman Government did the appointing because they are the ones in authority over who gets put where in their army.
Thanks for your agreement. However, it could also be possible that he "set" himself as a volunteer. I haven't checked the verb tense.
quote:
Perhaps the reformed are doing the same in Act 13:48 - For who has the authority over eternal life - God. So if someone was appointed to eternal life, who would be the one to do it - God. Surely this could also be a possible meaning. (And it seems a more natural reading honestly)
Except...tasso isn't really the strongest word Luke uses for "appoint/ordain". There is another word, horizo, which means "declare, determine, limit, ordain." Like tasso, it is also found 8 times in the NT, again 6 times by Luke. In all but 1 passage, the ordaining or appointing is clearly stated to be by God. Luke uses horizo only once for the disciples.
Here are all the horizo passages: Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23, 10:42, 11:29, 17:26, 17:31, Rom 1:4, and Heb 4:7.
To be honest, if Luke had meant that God appointed or ordained some to eternal life, he would either have stated so clearly in the text, which he didn't, or he could have used horizo, which was used to more clearly indicate the act of ordaining, determining, limiting, or declaring. Tasso simply means to "set", "line up", "addict (devote)". And only once rendered "ordained/appointed", in Acts 13:48.
quote:
I am not saying that you are right or that they are right, but I can certainly see their position much easier that all the greek scholar, middle voice, passive voice, etc, etc that is necessary to understand your position. (I think it's kind of funny that you present it as though it should be clear as day for everyone to see
Nope, just pointing out some facts which must be taken into account. The rendering of "appointing" just isn't very strong for tasso, as it is for horizo.
quote:
quote:
So it is clear that Mark meant middle voice even though he used passive voice. That is a demonstration of how writers wrote. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that Luke did the same in Acts 13:48? Only a theological bias would reject that possibility, for it is a "proof-text" for them, but only without any proof. I think only a theological bias would lead someone to go to the lengths you have to make a way for this text to say they appointed themselves - sorry
Please don't be sorry. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I haven't said they "appointed themselves", as you indicate. I think they "were devoted" makes more sense when you see the contrast Luke made between the unblieving Jews and believing Gentiles.
The fact that translators used "ordain/appoint" for tasso in Acts 13:48 simply gives calvinists a "proof-text" for their doctrine, but considering all the relevant facts, the argument isn't strong. That's my point. It isn't a proof text. There are too many variables to be dogmatic that tasso was meant for "ordain/appoint", particularly since Luke used horizo 6 times, 5 of which clearly were used of God doing the action. The other 2 uses of horizo (Rom and Heb) also mentioned God as the One doing the action.
quote:
quote:
It was common for writers to use passive when middle voice was meant. the example in Mark 1:6 proves that quite well. Is it common among writers of Scripture. Is this the only example you know of? One example doesn't equal common.
I am aware of 1 example. But I have read scholars who note that it was not uncommon (read common) for writers to use the passive when middle was meant. Does that help?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Destiny : From what I can gather in looking at these verses the only other case in which the subject "tassoes??" themselves, it is clearly shown that they themselves are doing it. (By the simple use of the pronoun - themselves) To get that from Acts 13:48 you have to do a lot a "stretching" as I see it. FreeGrace : Only because you forgot that it was common for writers to use passive when middle voice was meant. I gave you an example to demonstrate that fact. If you ignore that fact, ok, stay with your understanding. I didn't forget, I'm just not convinced. You gave me an example as in one. That doesn't translate to "its o.k. to take a passive voice and make it middle voice in every occasion"
"in every occasion"? I haven't done that. I'm only pointing out that there are other ways to understand the passage and that the reformed view is not in stone. Since there are at least 1 other example in Scripture, that does prove that passive voices are used when middle is meant. If I couldn't find even 1 example, I wouldn't have ANY argument, would I? But I do have 1. That confirms that passive was used when middle was meant.
quote:
As I read back over this post it sounds a little harsh and I hesitate to actually post it. Please know that I'm just posting my heart felt reservations about what you've presented and not a personal attack. thanks for the discussion.In Love,Destiny
I haven't sensed any harshness at all in your posts. I've enjoyed discussing with you. I sense you are honest in trying to understand. I have "discussed" with many others who were very "hard over" in their opinions, and clearly indicated so! 
I know many think that I am "hard over" with my opinion. I'm just presenting facts about Acts 13:48 which I think are worth considering. While I certainly cannot prove my position, I don't think the reformed have any proof text in Acts 13:48 for their position either.
What is your view of what Paul said in Rom 3:23-25, where he included the entire human race (for all have sinned...v.23) just before stating how anyone is justified freely (v.24), which is "through faith in His blood...v.25). iow, anyone can be justified freely through faith. That statement debunks the reformed doctrine of limited/particular atonement.
Such a statement casts a very dark shadow over the reformed view of Acts 13:48, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:36:52 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1528
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
If you will provide me with a quote ( in context)from any FG writer that promotes
worldly, carnal Christianity i will be willing to debate it,but not until then....
* Repentance is never to be included as part of the gospel message.
* One may receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord. That is,
one may receive Christ by faith alone ("intellectual assent" is the definition
some of them affirm), yet do so with ongoing rebellion--accepting the gift
while shaking a fist at the giver. God does not necessarily change the
heart (to grant a love for Christ, or even a receptivity to Him) when He saves someone.
* True Christians will not necessarily evidence their faith by works
(or "fruit"). In fact, a true Christian may never show any evidence
of the new birth.
*True Christians will not necessarily persevere in the faith. In fact,
a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior, later become intellectually
unconvinced of the gospel, denounce Christ and become an atheist;
however, because of that one human decision made at one point in time,
he is still considered to be saved. For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign
of the Sevant Kings, says, "It is possible for a truly born-again person to
fall away from the faith and cease believing." (p.199).
True Christians may fall away completely from the faith and still be saved.
God in no way grants them perseverance, or sustains them in their faith.
*At the Bema seat, Christ will divide believers into two distinct and
separate groups: the faithful, "overcoming" Christians will be allowed to
reign with Him in the millennial kingdom; they are the "heirs" of the kingdom.
Unfaithful, carnal believers, however, will get into the kingdom, but will not
be allowed to reign with Christ. They enter the kingdom but do not inherit it.
In fact, they will be barred from the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, and will
be cast outside of the wedding banquet, where they will weep and gnash
their teeth (just as unbelievers will do in hell). The millennium will therefore
be a time of sorrow and weeping for these children of God.
Disputation of the teachings of Zane Hodges.
Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:39:36 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1528
Status: offline
|
ODELIYA:
"Simply believe in Jesus and He guarantees you will never die
spiritually. You will go to heaven when you die, and spend
eternity in God's kingdom. It really is that simple.
That's why it's called Good News."
From Grace Evangelical Society.
See anything wrong with this type of evangelistic message?
Hint: They left God out!!
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:44:06 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1528
Status: offline
|
ODELIYA:
From Theopedia:
Easy believism is the "popular slogan for the view that one simply
has to believe in order to be saved and that there is no corresponding
need for a committed life of Christian discipleship."
The result is that sanctification is divorced from justification, and discipleship
is seen as a path that some Christians follow, but not others. The term carnal
Christian is used to describe such a supposed Christian, who once made a
"decision" but has not continued in discipleship. Names applied to this doctrine
by opponents include no-lordship and cheap grace as it suggests that "accepting Jesus"
does not involve any further commitments.
Proponents of this view, on the other hand, prefer the term the "free grace"
to describe their position. Easy-believism is also said to overemphasize the
doctrine of assurance of salvation at the expense of personal authenticity.
Disagree? Comments?
See any parallel to the sorry state of Christianity today?
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 8:47:42 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1528
Status: offline
|
ODELIYA:
Also from Theopedia:
"Free grace" advocates suggest that faith is a one-time decision, a
mental assent to the bare facts about Christ (JGES 18:34 [1], pdf).
In so doing, the "free grace" view sounds very much like Sandemanianism,
a rationalist approach to faith which was arose in eighteenth-century Scotland.
The Reformed insist that faith is a continued, lively trust in the promises of God."
Comments?
Didn't mean to overload you but after you digest, tell me if you think
this type of theology is not the source of the problem of uncommitted,
carnal, cultural Christianity that is rampant in the US.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 9:54:12 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2109
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
ODELIYA:
From Theopedia:
Easy believism is the "popular slogan for the view that one simply
has to believe in order to be saved and that there is no corresponding
need for a committed life of Christian discipleship."
The result is that sanctification is divorced from justification, and discipleship
is seen as a path that some Christians follow, but not others. The term carnal
Christian is used to describe such a supposed Christian, who once made a
"decision" but has not continued in discipleship. Names applied to this doctrine
by opponents include no-lordship and cheap grace as it suggests that "accepting Jesus"
does not involve any further commitments.
Proponents of this view, on the other hand, prefer the term the "free grace"
to describe their position. Easy-believism is also said to overemphasize the
doctrine of assurance of salvation at the expense of personal authenticity.
Disagree? Comments?
See any parallel to the sorry state of Christianity today?
Keep preachin' it man !!!
_____________________________
"WHOSOEVER"are the elect-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/15/2008 10:39:39 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1772
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Rwe, come on.... you are confusing.
What was all that suppose to prove?
I asked for quotes in context. You provided 1 quote, without context, but OK, i will address it:
For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign of the Sevant Kings, says, "It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing." (p.199). Charles Stanley explained it in detail. In fact we even have a Biblical example of a person who was saved God's child and fell away from faith and ceased believing.
Using the FGbashing, biased, half hysterical sites to prove your point is so lame and dispicable of a tactic I forgive you and write it off as late night lapse in judgement. You think *I* can't provide a ton of links bashing Mc Artur, presenting him as Unbiblical heretic and presenting LS as the source of most ills of modern church?!!! Sorry, I will never fall to this level.I can email it to you ,but will not pollute the thread.
The rest of your post was preaching against the evils of modern Organized christianity.Amen , brother!! I am with Manna- Preach it! (What does it have to do with our debate though..?)
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 6:26:33 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1433
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Romans 8:29-30 states (and you have agreed) that only those who are foreknown and predestined are called. God does not call others; Only those whom He foreknew.
In the context of Rom 8:29-30, that is certainly true, since the topic is about believers only. Agreed?
Agreed.
God foreknew a certain group of people.
Those whom He foreknew he predestined.
It was those whom He predestined He called.
The use of the word "called" is limited to a certain group of people - those whom He foreknew and predestined.
God does not call those outside of the group of people whom He foreknew; he only calls those whom He foreknew.
All those whom God called He justified and glorified. So, according to Paul in Romans 8, if a person has been called he is also justified.
quote:
However, what about Matt 22:14 which says, "many are called, few are chosen". What do you do about that?
The word "called" in this passage is used in a different way. In Romans 8:29-30 all who are called are justified. Here in Matt 22:14 that is not the case. The term "called" refers to the universal outward call - those who hear the gospel with their physical ears. The term "chosen" is referring to God's sovereign election - similar to Paul's use of the word "called" in Rom 8:30.
quote:
It seems clear to me that the "many" here would be everyone who is exposed to the gospel is invited to believe, which is supported in the Bible. But, not everyone who is exposed to the gospel believe, so part of or many of the "many" would be unbelievers, yet they are called. So, in this passage, the "called" include unbelievers as well.
Agreed.
quote:
So, as always, context is king. In Rom 8, the "called" are specifically describing believers only. But in Matt 22:14, the called include those who won't believe the gospel. Hope this clarifies for you.
In Romans : 29-30 all who are called are justified and glorified - all of them. The use of the word "called" is effectual, for none who are called reject the call. The use of the word "called" in Matt 22:14 is the outward call heard by all within listening distance of the gospel preached. This call can be rejected, for it is only those chosen who receive it as true.
So, the term "called" Romans 8:30 is used in a similar way as the term "chosen" is in Matthew 22:14.
< Message edited by SureHope -- 5/16/2008 6:53:43 AM >
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 6:47:30 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1433
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
FG,
quote:
Kletos = called = invited. OK, what is your point here? All who hear the gospel are invited (kletos) to believe, and some, many, or most who hear do not respond, but they are called anyway to believe. In Rom 8, which is speaking specifically about believers, are also "the called". They had to hear before they could believe.
The amazing thing in Romans 8:30 is that all who are called are justified - no one rejects this call. Paul did not write, "these whom He predestined are 'the called'," but, "these whom He predestined, He also called." This is an action that God does.
God, in a point in time, calls those whom He foreknew and predestined. God calls them out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Pet 2:9).
Paul then shows us what happens to these whom He called -
"These whom He called, He also justified."
All whom God calls are justified.
The word "called" as Paul uses it in Romans in not merely an invitation, for none reject this call. It is an action of God that ensures justification and glorification to all whom God foreknew.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:04:18 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
tdd1975: I agree with you Destiny that the natural reading is that someone else did the ordaining. I believe that someone else is God. When I just read the text, even with the surrounding text intact, this does in fact seem the most natural meaning.
Interesting. The most natural meaning of Luke 8:12 and 13 is that the second soil were saved, yet the reformed strongly reject that "natural meaning".
How is it we "pick and choose"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:08:18 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
If you will provide me with a quote ( in context)from any FG writer that promotes
worldly, carnal Christianity i will be willing to debate it,but not until then....
* Repentance is never to be included as part of the gospel message.
* One may receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord. That is,
one may receive Christ by faith alone ("intellectual assent" is the definition
some of them affirm), yet do so with ongoing rebellion--accepting the gift
while shaking a fist at the giver. God does not necessarily change the
heart (to grant a love for Christ, or even a receptivity to Him) when He saves someone.
* True Christians will not necessarily evidence their faith by works
(or "fruit"). In fact, a true Christian may never show any evidence
of the new birth.
*True Christians will not necessarily persevere in the faith. In fact,
a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior, later become intellectually
unconvinced of the gospel, denounce Christ and become an atheist;
however, because of that one human decision made at one point in time,
he is still considered to be saved. For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign
of the Sevant Kings, says, "It is possible for a truly born-again person to
fall away from the faith and cease believing." (p.199).
True Christians may fall away completely from the faith and still be saved.
God in no way grants them perseverance, or sustains them in their faith.
*At the Bema seat, Christ will divide believers into two distinct and
separate groups: the faithful, "overcoming" Christians will be allowed to
reign with Him in the millennial kingdom; they are the "heirs" of the kingdom.
Unfaithful, carnal believers, however, will get into the kingdom, but will not
be allowed to reign with Christ. They enter the kingdom but do not inherit it.
In fact, they will be barred from the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, and will
be cast outside of the wedding banquet, where they will weep and gnash
their teeth (just as unbelievers will do in hell). The millennium will therefore
be a time of sorrow and weeping for these children of God.
Disputation of the teachings of Zane Hodges.
rw, shame on you. You only quoted someone hostile to the free grace position. I believe what Del was asking from you was direct quotes from actual free grace proponents, NOT opponents. How could that be objective?
Ever notice how much of what I've posted gets twisted all around into what I surely do not believe? So, instead of reading those who are in opposition, why don't you find some sites OF the free grace movement, and try to find what is charged against them. Happy reading.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:18:40 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
ODELIYA:
"Simply believe in Jesus and He guarantees you will never die
spiritually. You will go to heaven when you die, and spend
eternity in God's kingdom. It really is that simple.
That's why it's called Good News."
From Grace Evangelical Society.
See anything wrong with this type of evangelistic message?
Sounds very much like John 5:24 and John 11:25-27 it me. These are the words of our Lord, rw. What do you see that would be "wrong" in what you found from GES?
quote:
Hint: They left God out!!
Really? Have you read John 14? Apparently not. Believing in God isn't salvific faith. It is believing in God's Son, Jesus Christ, that is saving.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:20:41 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1528
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Simply believe in Jesus and He guarantees you will
never die spiritually. You will go to heaven when you die, and spend
eternity in God's kingdom. It really is that simple.
That's why it's called Good News."
ODELIYA,
This is a DIRECT quote from GES website on how to be saved.
Do you think it is easy believism or not?
Do you think they left out God's work or not?
Do you think it is mental assent or not?
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:22:05 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
ODELIYA:
Also from Theopedia:
"Free grace" advocates suggest that faith is a one-time decision, a
mental assent to the bare facts about Christ (JGES 18:34 [1], pdf).
Probably what you have missed here is just what the "bare facts" refer to. They don't refer to where He was born, where He lived, etc. They refer to believing in His saving work on the cross personally for them, by dying for their sins.
quote:
The Reformed insist that faith is a continued, lively trust in the promises of God."
Since they misunderstand the very plain words of Jesus in Luke 8:12 and 13, of course they would.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:34:54 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Romans 8:29-30 states (and you have agreed) that only those who are foreknown and predestined are called. God does not call others; Only those whom He foreknew.
In the context of Rom 8:29-30, that is certainly true, since the topic is about believers only. Agreed?
Agreed.
God foreknew a certain group of people.
They are known as believers, as in believing in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for their sins.
quote:
Those whom He foreknew he predestined.
It was those whom He predestined He called.
The use of the word "called" is limited to a certain group of people - those whom He foreknew and predestined.
In the context of Rom 8, the "called" is limited to just believers, but not in Matt 22:14.
quote:
God does not call those outside of the group of people whom He foreknew; he only calls those whom He foreknew.
What do you do with Matt 22:14? Many are called, but few are chosen. iow, many are invited to believe, but only a few are chosen for salvation cf. 2 Thess 2:13.
quote:
All those whom God called He justified and glorified. So, according to Paul in Romans 8, if a person has been called he is also justified.
Since "all those" refers only to believers, who were invited and responded, Paul calls them the "called".
quote:
quote:
However, what about Matt 22:14 which says, "many are called, few are chosen". What do you do about that?
The word "called" in this passage is used in a different way. In Romans 8:29-30 all who are called are justified. Here in Matt 22:14 that is not the case. The term "called" refers to the universal outward call - those who hear the gospel with their physical ears. The term "chosen" is referring to God's sovereign election - similar to Paul's use of the word "called" in Rom 8:30.
I'm not seeing your point. Many are called few are chosen. OK. The ones who respond to the gospel in faith have been called, right? So that's how Paul used it in Rom 8. All believers have been called. Referring to them as "the called" is natural since they were called.
quote:
quote:
So, as always, context is king. In Rom 8, the "called" are specifically describing believers only. But in Matt 22:14, the called include those who won't believe the gospel. Hope this clarifies for you.
In Romans : 29-30 all who are called are justified and glorified - all of them. The use of the word "called" is effectual, for none who are called reject the call.
That is directly contradicted by matt 22:14, for many are called, but few are chosen.
quote:
The use of the word "called" in Matt 22:14 is the outward call heard by all within listening distance of the gospel preached. This call can be rejected, for it is only those chosen who receive it as true.
You have given your opinion of this perceived "different" kind of call between Matt 22:14 and Rom 8, but where is your support for that, other than just opinion? Thanks.
quote:
So, the term "called" Romans 8:30 is used in a similar way as the term "chosen" is in Matthew 22:14.
I don't have a problem with that, since the called in Rom 8 are believers, those who have responded to the gospel in faith, as are the chosen in Matt 22:14.
The point remains that many are called, but not all of them respond in faith.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:41:40 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
FG,
quote:
Kletos = called = invited. OK, what is your point here? All who hear the gospel are invited (kletos) to believe, and some, many, or most who hear do not respond, but they are called anyway to believe. In Rom 8, which is speaking specifically about believers, are also "the called". They had to hear before they could believe.
The amazing thing in Romans 8:30 is that all who are called are justified - no one rejects this call. Paul did not write, "these whom He predestined are 'the called'," but, "these whom He predestined, He also called." This is an action that God does.
yes, just like in Matt 22:14, where many are called. The difference is that in Matt 22:14, not all of the called ones respond.
quote:
God, in a point in time, calls those whom He foreknew and predestined. God calls them out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Pet 2:9).
No argument.
quote:
Paul then shows us what happens to these whom He called -
"These whom He called, He also justified."
All whom God calls are justified.
The word "called" as Paul uses it in Romans in not merely an invitation, for none reject this call.
No one is arguing that those referred to in Rom 8 are the called one who responded. Of course they did.
quote:
It is an action of God that ensures justification and glorification to all whom God foreknew.
Again, no argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/16/2008 7:45:16 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6041
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
rw, pardon my "butinsky", but I must:
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
"Simply believe in Jesus and He guarantees you will
never die spiritually. You will go to heaven when you die, and spend
eternity in God's kingdom. It really is that simple.
That's why it's called Good News."
ODELIYA,
This is a DIRECT quote from GES website on how to be saved.
I wonder how much you left out.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
